Literature DB >> 20935168

Continuous perception and graded categorization: electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech.

Joseph C Toscano1, Bob McMurray, Joel Dennhardt, Steven J Luck.   

Abstract

Speech sounds are highly variable, yet listeners readily extract information from them and transform continuous acoustic signals into meaningful categories during language comprehension. A central question is whether perceptual encoding captures acoustic detail in a one-to-one fashion or whether it is affected by phonological categories. We addressed this question in an event-related potential (ERP) experiment in which listeners categorized spoken words that varied along a continuous acoustic dimension (voice-onset time, or VOT) in an auditory oddball task. We found that VOT effects were present through a late stage of perceptual processing (N1 component, ~100 ms poststimulus) and were independent of categorization. In addition, effects of within-category differences in VOT were present at a postperceptual categorization stage (P3 component, ~450 ms poststimulus). Thus, at perceptual levels, acoustic information is encoded continuously, independently of phonological information. Further, at phonological levels, fine-grained acoustic differences are preserved along with category information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20935168      PMCID: PMC3523688          DOI: 10.1177/0956797610384142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  31 in total

1.  Relationship between N1 evoked potential morphology and the perception of voicing.

Authors:  A Sharma; C M Marsh; M F Dorman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries.

Authors:  A M LIBERMAN; K S HARRIS; H S HOFFMAN; B C GRIFFITH
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1957-11

3.  The perception of voice onset time: an fMRI investigation of phonetic category structure.

Authors:  Sheila E Blumstein; Emily B Myers; Jesse Rissman
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Mismatch negativity reflects sensory and phonetic speech processing.

Authors:  Marc F Joanisse; Erin K Robertson; Randy Lynn Newman
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 1.837

5.  Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels.

Authors:  David B Pisoni
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1973-06-01

6.  Speech perception in severely disabled and average reading children.

Authors:  J F Werker; R C Tees
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1987-03

7.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Voicing judgements by chinchillas trained with a reward paradigm.

Authors:  K K Ohlemiller; L B Jones; A F Heidbreder; W W Clark; J D Miller
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Temporal encoding of the voice onset time phonetic parameter by field potentials recorded directly from human auditory cortex.

Authors:  M Steinschneider; I O Volkov; M D Noh; P C Garell; M A Howard
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Gradient sensitivity to within-category variation in words and syllables.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Richard N Aslin; Michael K Tanenhaus; Michael J Spivey; Dana Subik
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  35 in total

1.  Individual differences in language ability are related to variation in word recognition, not speech perception: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Bob McMurray; Cheyenne Munson; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Contextual Influences on Phonetic Categorization in School-Aged Children.

Authors:  Jean A Campbell; Heather L McSherry; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  Front Commun (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-09-19

3.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Cue-integration and context effects in speech: evidence against speaking-rate normalization.

Authors:  Joseph C Toscano; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Neural dynamics of phonological processing in the dorsal auditory stream.

Authors:  Einat Liebenthal; Merav Sabri; Scott A Beardsley; Jain Mangalathu-Arumana; Anjali Desai
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Modification of spectral features by nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Daniel J Weiss; Cara F Hotchkin; Susan E Parks
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 12.579

7.  Rethinking the McGurk effect as a perceptual illusion.

Authors:  Laura M Getz; Joseph C Toscano
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Sound identification in human auditory cortex: Differential contribution of local field potentials and high gamma power as revealed by direct intracranial recordings.

Authors:  Kirill V Nourski; Mitchell Steinschneider; Ariane E Rhone; Hiroyuki Oya; Hiroto Kawasaki; Matthew A Howard; Bob McMurray
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.381

9.  Bias in the perception of phonetic detail in children's speech: A comparison of categorical and continuous rating scales.

Authors:  Benjamin Munson; Sarah K Schellinger; Jan Edwards
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 1.346

10.  A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Travis White-Schwoch; Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.